But then I come to all of the rules about keeping slaves in chapter 21. I have heard so many people challenge the Bible's truth on the basis that the Bible seemed to condone the keeping of human slaves, at least in the Old Testament. How do we answer this objection to the Bible?
I am not going to try and be the expert right now, but I'm just going to let you into my brain and share how I am processing these rules about slaves.
First of all, the very fact that rules are being introduced in the ancient world was a HUUUUUUGE culture shift. Did you notice at the beginning of Exodus how government normally functioned in the ancient world? One person did whatever they wanted to ("unwritten rules"), without having to give much of an answer to others. It was the type of democracy called, "Absolute Monarchy." This means the king, or Pharaoh, did anything they wanted, with almost zero checks and balances. So God steps into the story and says, "Nah' ah. I don't think so" and wipes out the system of slavery that the Israelites called "life."
Instead, God shows the Israelites a new way to live. God doesn't reveal everything all at once, but He does instruct some big life-changing shifts right away (we call this "progressive revelation"). First of all, one person cannot be the all-knowing bearer of truth and judge, operating with his/her own "unwritten rules." Pharaoh tried that - it was an unfair and humiliating system for anyone not in Pharaoh's favor. But let's not be too hard on him. It was the way things were done back then. Hey, guess who else tried it - Moses! In Exodus 18, right before God gives Moses the 10 commandments, Moses is having all of the Israelites come directly to him to ask for God's perspective on any disagreements that arose in the camp. Jethro (Moses' wise father-n-law) gives Moses some very wise advise - don't do do that. The people should have identified among them who are knowledgable and trustworthy to distribute the load of judging problems. But if that is going to work, all of God's rules cannot just be in Moses' head. The people have to know what God is thinking if they are going to stop coming to Moses for everything.
So, two chapters later, God tells not just Moses, but ALL of the Israelites what He thinks about most major issues that they were dealing with in that day, and He puts it into writing (literally) - especially the issue of slavery, which the Israelites were all too familiar with from hundreds of years living as slaves under the Egyptians.
This brings us to the issue of slaves in chapter 21. And if you look closely, every rule about slaves is aimed at bringing changes to the system in favor of the slave: Hebrew slaves had to be released after 6 years, female slaves could not be kept if they were going to be mistreated, slaves must be released if they loose an eye or a tooth, etc. Some might argue that this only made slavery more acceptable in that culture and hindered abolishment of the slave system. However, slavery in the ancient world wasn't considered a negative thing in an of itself - it was actually a way of survival for the underprivileged. In many cases, you would not have food to eat if you didn't have a master to work for, someone who had the resources to provide housing, food, clothes, etc. Matter of fact, many slaves who were offered freedom chose rather to stay a slave instead of face the harsh reality of independent living - the proved it by getting their ear pierced (21:6).
With these new rules, things were headed in the right direction. Not ideal completely (is it ever, this side of heaven?), but moving in that direction. Interesting thought - if slaves are treated fairly and the system is actually stacked in their favor, maybe a more accurate term would be "servants" than slaves in the technical sense. In some ways, we have a similar setup even in our modern, free-market society. Yes, we are free to work where we want - but ONLY if there is opportunity. I am free to do what I am allowed to do, but only through empowerment from those I will work for and subjugate myself to. Yes, I could choose not to, but then I would be jobless and unable to eat or have adequate medical care. Which sounds kinda like a slave, doesn't it?! The definition of slavery is "involuntary subjugation to another." So, am I a "slave" if I have to subjugate myself to another person or company unwillingly because I can't eat if I don't? I think all of us would agree that a more precise definition of a "slave" would be when equality and each individual's human worth is ignored, which is the opposite of what was happening in the Old Testament.
My point is this, the slavery that seemed to be condoned in the Old Testament must be seen through the eyes of those living in the ancient world. And from that perspective, this was a HUUUUUUGE step forward, to have written rules available to the common man, which encouraged a more fair system of economy that was gracious to the underprivileged, providing a more fair and secure economical system.
No comments:
Post a Comment